El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

El Dorado County Grand Jury 2010 - 2011 El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office Incentive Pay Case Number Gj10-011

Published: May 28, 2010 10 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 14 findings

F1
According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, EDCSO Internal Affairs audited the degrees of EIP recipients in 2002 and found one individual with a degree from Hamilton University. This individual did not appear to warrant EIP. Internal Affairs reports directly to the Under-sheriff and does not conduct investigations without direction from or approval by the Under-sheriff or Sheriff. Testimony indicated that when approached by Internal Affairs, the Under-sheriff ordered Internal Affairs to cease any further investigation. However, when Internal Affairs was interviewed by the District Attorney’s investigator, this audit was said to have been conducted in 2008.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
A simple Web search provided information that Hamilton University was operated by a convicted felon. Hamilton University changed its name to Richardson University and relocated to the Bahamas after Hamilton University was shut down by authorities.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
In 2010, the issue of questionable degrees resurfaced. An Internal Affairs investigation revealed three individuals with diplomas from Hamilton or Richardson University and two other individuals with degrees from other questionable institutions. Internal Affairs turned the matter over to the District Attorney’s office to determine if criminal charges should be brought against these five sworn personnel. Internal Affairs did not obtain statements from the accused officers before turning the matter over to the District Attorney. 7
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The District Attorney’s Office spent eight months investigating the issue but has elected not to prosecute any of the individuals involved, due to a lack of sufficient evidence.  Four of the accused deputies declined to provide statements to the District Attorney’s Office.  The District Attorney’s investigation revealed that the five officers in question received a total of $166,459.72 in additional pay after the EDCSO Commanders approved their application for EIP.  The investigation revealed that the “four year degrees” were approved by EDCSO Commanders even though they were obtained in as little as four weeks of coursework.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
EDCSO Internal Affairs delayed any administrative investigation while the District Attorney’s investigation was ongoing. During this time, two of the individuals in question retired and the other three have remained employed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
An administrative investigation by EDCSO Internal Affairs should determine whether any of the five sworn officers investigated for EIP abuse were culpable of any violation of department policy that would warrant administrative 9 penalties. Appropriate penalties including termination or demotion should be enforced if justified.
F6
The Modified, Last, Best and Final offer for the EDCSO Deputy Sheriffs Association, Law Enforcement Unit and the El Dorado County Law Enforcement Manager’s Association are the two labor agreements currently in force between El Dorado County and the sworn personnel of the Sheriff’s Office. Both agreements are subject to renegotiation.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Both labor agreements provide incentives for longevity pay, POST Certificate Awards and Educational Incentive Pay. POST incentives are available as an alternative to longevity pay and these two incentives may not be combined. However, EIP may be combined with either POST incentives or longevity pay. A Captain, for example, receiving the maximum benefit for EIP and longevity pay could receive nearly $32,000 in additional pay.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
In 2010, the County paid in excess of $300,000 in EIP to EDCSO personnel. At the current rate, this incentive program will cost the County in excess of $3,000,000 over the next ten years.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Neither labor agreement provides a standard for evaluating the legitimacy of college degrees and diplomas. The language of the agreements does not specify either “accredited colleges” or “State approved” colleges as a means of identifying legitimate institutions.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
As provisions of the EDCSO labor agreements are renegotiated, the provision for providing EIP should be modified to include a standard for measuring the legitimacy of the institutions providing the qualifying degrees. Either “accreditation by a governing body recognized by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education” or “State Approved Colleges” recognized by the bureau established by the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 provides easy verification of the legitimacy of the institutions.
R2
Accreditation by a governing body recognized by the United States Department of Education would be preferred because it is consistent with the standards required by POST.
R3
A memorandum from the Sheriff should be sent to all employees clarifying that the current MOU language means “two year” or four year” degrees must be Associate and Bachelor degrees from colleges or universities which are accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education.
F10
Two deputies, two sergeants and one lieutenant received degrees from unaccredited institutions that are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney General as “diploma mills.” All five of these individuals applied for and received EIP. Applications were approved by EDCSO Commanders. 8
No recommendations for this finding
F11
There is no requirement for personnel applying for EIP to provide a duplicate diploma and/or sealed transcripts to the El Dorado County Human Resource Department for independent verification.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
Any future applications for EIP by sworn personnel should include sealed transcripts and a diploma from the accredited college or university. Copies of these documents should be provided to both the Under-sheriff for approval and the Director of El Dorado County Human Resources for independent review.
R6
The El Dorado County Department of Human Resources should be required to verify the accreditation status of any college or university granting degrees for which EIP is currently being paid or for which an application is submitted. No payment should be made for EIP or POST Award certificates without pre- specified evidence of eligibility from both the Sheriff’s Office and the El Dorado County Human Resource Director.
F12
The District Attorney’s investigation confirmed that the five employees investigated were the only then current sworn personnel receiving EIP based upon degrees issued by questionable institutions.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Other local law enforcement agencies offer EIP and POST but the incentives cannot be combined, are currently limited to a maximum benefit of 10% of base salary, and are not available to command rank (Lieutenants and above).
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
In order that the paid compensation of the EDCSO is consistent with other local law enforcement agencies, the CAO should direct the Department of Human Resources to periodically conduct compensation reviews of those other local agencies to ensure that the compensation is consistent and competitive with local standards.
F14
The EDCSO reviewed the training files of 79 sworn personnel in 2010 to determine the legitimacy of college degrees. However, there were an additional 18 Correctional Officers receiving EIP who were not included in that review.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
In addition to the EDCSO the personnel files of all past and present County, City and Special District employees receiving EIP should be reviewed by an independent auditor to evaluate the legitimacy of all degrees on file. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff, the El Dorado County Human Resources Department and the El Dorado County CAO for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report. 10

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

El Dorado County County
El Dorado County Sheriff Elected County Office